>>> It is a logical fallacy to ask for proof of the non-existence of
> something.
Ummm ... Michelson-Morley [1]?
yum. one can do quite a bit of Popperian riff on this one...dhyat! no time to post -(
i am somehow reminded of that Einstein anecdote. somewhere i think he had said that, " Plank, you know never really understood physics. because if he did he wouldnt have stayed up all night to know the experiment results[1]. he would have just gone to sleep as i did. becuase i knew the results would confirm GTR"
(or something to that effect i guess. is this there in the Abraham Pais book? have to check)
(or something to that effect i guess. is this there in the Abraham Pais book? have to check)
[1] bending of light ray GTR experiments during the solar eclispe
On 5/12/06, Biju Chacko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/05/06, Ashish Gulhati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It is a logical fallacy to ask for proof of the non-existence of
> something.
Ummm ... Michelson-Morley [1]?
I think you mean, "It is a logical fallacy to ask for proof of the
non-existence of something for which no testable criteria can be set".
-- b
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
does the frog know it has a latin name?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
